The use of the term nanoartifacts may be unfamiliar but is deliberately intended
to focus on tangible outcomes for business and industry. It is also intended
to deflect thought away from the misleading term ‘nanotechnol-ogy’
with its implication of a unified branch of technology already associated with
unreasonable expectations. Two ways of thinking about the words ‘business’
and ‘nanoartifacts’ are the phrases ‘the business of nanoarti-facts’
and its converse ‘nanoartifacts in business.’

It is necessary to avoid the habit of producing ever-growing lists of so-called
markets for nanoartifacts. To some industries nanoartifacts are far from new
while to others they represent the excitement typified by ‘gee-whiz’
technology that the unwary rush toward but are often abhorred like the plague
by most companies. The ‘business of nanoartifacts’ concerns how
they are created now and how they may be created at some time in the future.
By contrast ‘nanoartifacts in business’ focuses on how they may
influence business through investment and the like.

Systems integration is fundamental to the business of artefacts because of
their integrative character. There is nothing unusual in systems integration
or that it has to be based on the appropriate science, technology and en-gineering.
However, for nanoartifacts migration to the length scale of 1 to 100 nanometres,
the zone of immedi-ate interest, distinctly shifts the regime into the quantum
world. Nanoartifacts are created at the molecular or atomic scale where chemists,
biologists and material scientists have worked for a very long time. By contrast,
information technology has only recently begun to migrate toward nanoartifacts
through for example, the use of read/write heads that make use of the giant
magnetoresistive effect. Whilst the length scale is not sufficient to define
the character of nanoartifacts, it remains a simple way to indicate a current
zone of attention for many industries and companies.

In the current state of fluidity and uncertainty in science it may be as well
to invoke Barrow’s notions of the ‘limits of science and the science
of limits’. The nature of the argument is summed up succinctly in a quotation
from Victor Hugo ‘..man is not a circle with a single centre; he is an
ellipse with two foci. Facts are one, ideas are the other.’ The quotation
crystallises the argument between those who see a world totally changed by nanoartifacts
and others who do not. The negative argument denies that what the limits of
science permits will necessarily be capable of translation into artefacts by
technology and engineering. Also Joy has expressed ethical concerns about the
most extreme forms of nanoartifacts, especially those that self-assemble and
self-replicate. The debate may seem remote but it is influencing over enthusiastic
pronouncements that are being taken up by politicians, governments, market analysts
and others who influence the directions taken by invest-ment and research and
development.

Nanoscience is by any measure breathtaking, a description used by and reinforces
the notion that the translation of science into technology and artefacts is
in many instances in its infancy, though chemists and biologists find that notion
debatable. The important bridge for nanoartifacts is between the molecular scale
and the smallscale end of nanotechnological experiment and nanoengineering.
Forest has suggested a unifying role for mathematics in effecting this bridge.
The emphasis on scientific computing as the front line to much of science is
important for nanoscience.

The business of nanoartifacts lies in their creation. Two strands emerge though
there is a considerable overlap between the two. First, there is atomic and
molecular-scale fabrication, which has become possible through the advent of
the ATM, STM and similar instruments. Translation of these microscopies into
production equip-ment capable of manufacturing new materials is now a matter
for concern. For this to occur would not be un-usual; many production processes
have started out from laboratory instruments.

The second strand concerns understanding the cell; it involves genomics, proteomics
and other aspects of cell biology. The problems of understanding here are immense.
In genomics the field is already breaking down into specialisms that have difficulty
communicating with one another, while protein chemistry is turning out to be
every bit as complex and difficult as unravelling genetic codes. Understanding
the cell is now of vital interest in medicine as new forms of therapy focus
on cell repair and direct delivery of therapeutic agents into the cell in a
highly controlled way. The role that mathematics and simulation can play in
understanding the cell is now firmly on the nanoscience agenda and is already
well established in molecular design.

In the immediate future the business of nanoscience and nanotechnology and
engineering are likely to be driven by the current desire to extend the life
of Moore’s Law beyond its currently believed life of 10 years. Other nanoartifacts
are likely to support the development of very high-density data storage systems,
perhaps incorporating some entirely new notions of data storage, mobility and
access. Throughout, two of the tenets of nanoartifact design need to be parsimony
and precaution as both should lead to the minimisation of the energy needed
for their creation while the latter is essential if litigation is to be avoided
under product liability or some other legal process. In the manufacturing field
the precise design and use of catalysts and their support systems is bound to
feature strongly among nanoartifacts if only because they are already so widely
used. Throughout nanometrology must underpin the understanding of nano-phenomena,
the design of nanoartifacts, the control of their production processes and product
quality assurance.

What influences may nanoartifacts have on industry and business? Here the concern
has to be for how compa-nies and perhaps whole industries may be reshaped. At
present the nano-community pays little attention to the matter of the desirability
of nanoartifacts, the excitement of the possibilities nanoscience and the realities,
and potential feasibilities of nanotechnology and engineering are ‘enough
to be going on with.’ However, this is not a wise or sustainable position.
Awareness in the wider world is already creating hyperbole, which is not restricted
to the popular media but is also present in the scientific community, excitement
and suspicion, and, in some cases, outright opposition to what is thought to
be likely to happen in the near future.

It has long been apparent that nanoartifacts could create feasible changes
to production plant capable of reshap-ing companies and possibly whole industrial
sectors. One way of thinking about industries as a whole was developed by an
EIRMA working group; their framework split industries into two groups identified
as ‘Assembly’ and ‘Whole product’. The EIRMA group concluded
that their division of industries had a degree of artificiality and that the
two overlapped fuzzily. Nanoartifacts have the capability to pervade both groups.
With nanoartifacts partly in mind, the ERIMA group also concluded that there
would be an increasing role for small to medium sized specialist ‘boutique’
companies with unique skills that could, with proper licensing arrangements,
be sources of technology for larger companies. Some companies of this kind were
members of the EIRMA group and since then many more have been formed including
most recently a linkage between Antisoma and Roche.

The potential pervasiveness of nanoscience, technology and engineering has
already begun to spawn companies with unique approaches to smallscale production
processes. These may well have a serious potential to evolve into smallscale
high volume production processes that may lead toward the long anticipated ‘table
top’ production plant for high value nanobased artefacts. Avantium, and
its network of partners, is an example of where this kind of development has
started and from where it might spread. The capital cost of these ‘table
top’ factories is unlikely to be high, with the possibility of altering
the fixed capital structure of companies in the fields where these facilities
can be used. In contrast modern IC production facilities currently cost in the
region of $1 billion; redevelopment of them to incorporate nanometre scale devices
could easily mean that even the largest IC makers will need to collaborate to
share the costs.

In the trio of questions:

What is possible within known science?

What may technology (and engineering) make feasible in the way of nanoartifacts?

What nanoartifacts may society consider desirable?

Desirability is usually the last rather then the first question to be asked.
There continues to be a belief, at least in technological quarters, in the infinite
plasticity of human beings toward new artefacts, a view that is now clearly
being rejected. What should companies do to prepare for the arrival of nanoartifacts?
First, to recognise that they are already here and in very significant quantities
particularly in chemistry and biology. Second, learn the language of the nano-world,
and particularly of systems integration at the nanoscale. Third, develop interdisci-plinary
training plans; do not rely on universities, professional societies or other
formal institutions to provide a stream of people trained in ‘nanotechnology.’
Fourth, be prepared to experiment with alliances, joint ventures and the like
with boutique style companies and other organisations that have special expertise
in the creation of nanoartifacts whether that be in:

Fundamental understanding of phenomena

The mathematics of nanoscience, nanotechnology, nano-design and nanoengineering,
and simulation

Systems integration whether that be for the:

- Inclusion of nanoartifacts as part of a macro-system or artefact
- Creation of a macro-artefact from aggregation of nanoartifacts
- Creation of a unique nanoartifact

Nanometrology

Nanoscale production processes

Creation of a proper appreciation throughout the company of the place of
nanoartifacts in its business and their influence throughout its value chain

Fifth, to appreciate the potential role that nanoartifacts may play in sustainable
development.